He is not confusing a discussion of civil rights with scientific evidence. The issue is two pronged, first, forcing vaccines onto people, second, the suitability or lack thereof of vaccines as medical treatment. The concerns raised about the second argument makes the first argument all the more necessary, and alarming.

For an individual to vaccinate or not, there is no big economic gain or loss either way. Either vaccines are safe and effective, in which case I would accept to take them, OR not, in which case I wouldn't. The decision will neither break my bank account nor make me rich. For the pharmaceutical industry, an untold amount of money is riding on whether millions of us choose to vaccinate or not, especially given how many decades, 100 years or more, they have built up their industry. Given all the influence they have, is it inconceivable they have corrupted the system, and made the scientific evidence supposedly gathered by third parties fit their agenda?